lessee has taken over and even before that, it's still your holding. it's still to maximize your investment. you do need to put some resource in your building. i would not be open to granting a continuance. i think that, it doesn't preclude you from finishing the work, it's to prioritize the needs of your tents. i -- tenants. i think you prioritizing the needs for tourist. >> i have a different opinion about that. i feel that granting a continuance will allow us to at least overhear what the project plans are for the tenants and maybe we can

enforce them to move ahead with that plan and be sure that tenants are protected and moved into the rooms as quickly as possible. i'm willing to grant the continuance for a month, really, let our inspectors go back to the building and see what has been completed and what has not been and i would like to know what the plans are for the existing tenants, have the new rooms , are they ready? i want to know what those plans are before i decide on whether to uphold the abatement or not? >> likewise. i would like to hear testimony from someone like buildings from electrical who has been out there. seems like they are more witness and maybe they can come. >> i'm more concerned with the timeframe. if we are going to grant a continuance, i would agree with commissioner lee

about making it 30 days and see if you can really move those 24 tenants in a month and then we'll talk about the other issues. and that should be the priority. you have a lot of empty rooms. in one month you can get it ready for the people and then we can come back and talk about the rest of the building. >> public comment? >> my name is -- again i work at central city at the community organizer part of the housing clinic. i have been here before and we do a lot of private outreach and we've been to the hotel many times in several years. it has very bad history of the maintenance. and we had difficulty getting reaching tenants there because many of the tenants are

transient and they are afraid. we actually new about today's abatement hearing and we basically went yesterday but we also do part of collaborative we do outreach and private sro for lifeline and we were doing that yesterday and we got to see mr. wish out there and we asked him if we can talk to the tenants. he told us there were only 7 tenants living there and most of them are working and you won't be able to talk to them. i have been in that building before in december of last year where one of the persons told me to contact her client in the building so i went in there to do an outreach. i saw a lot of

rooms boarded up. i have seen the conditions and it's very badly maintained. i agree that we should not allow a continuance. this hotel has a history with them not being fixed and i have been aware of their wishy washy plans. i'm also concerned about tenants rights. when tenants move from one unit to another regardless of the same building, they lose their tenant rights. it's easy to e evict them. i'm concerned about their rights. we have limited access because the owners can refuse us and if we don't have tenants coming to us because they are afraid. then we don't know about this. we didn't get to go in the building to see it. i have been in this building many times. i

didn't see any effort. i know mr. wish is very new, but the owner has not done anything yet. so. >> thank you. next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. i have worked with clients, the owners have a lot of these residential hotels and they are not easy to work with the tenants that they have there. i understand they have to provide housing. so i was in one time, i even tried to manage hotels myself and i had a bathroom and one of the tenants went out and defecated and spread through the walls and went back to his room laughing and i had a situation where a tenant had a microwave in his room with

maggots. it's really try to work around these people. it's really hard. it doesn't take a short of time as it normally would. when you have had such a lack of maintenance over several years, it needs a lot of work on it. it's not just plastering. so it's a lot of work to do. it doesn't just take a few days, 30 days to do it. it's a lot of work, believe me. i have worked in many of these hotels. i know exactly what goes on in them including one operated by this. tourist don't want to stay in these places. i urge you to continue it. thank you.

>> any other public speakers? commissioner mccarthy? >> if i made the tenderloin housing. thank you for your testimony today. i heard your situation here and i know the history here is bad and that's pretty much how look to the future. i know as a commission we are very cognizant of that. one thing i would ask of you and i'm not sure if the board would like to continue this, but if they are, you would be able to come back and report to us and i'm asking if the ownership here would facilitate tender house clinic to demonstrate the work that is going on out there and you make a good judgment there and i would hear from you if you concur or don't concur that would be really helpful to us and that would be a good compromise if you are willing

to do that and the owner is willing to do that. >> sure. >> okay. thank you. >> well willing to do that. >> okay. thank you. that will be stated for the record. >> also if it is continued, i want the housing inspectors to go back in there and at least visit the 24 rooms that are occupied and confirm the occupancy. >> we have a motion, is to grant a continuance for 1 month and have all parties return for an update? >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. call the roll call vote on this motion.

president clinch, yes, melgar? no, mar, yes, mccray? >> yes, mccarthy, no, lee, yes. the motion carries 4-2. >> can i just clarify, is it continued for 30 days or one month because that sometimes makes a difference. >> make sure it's within the period of the next meeting. >> let's continue for our next meeting in may. >> if you have the date you can do that. >> the next meeting is may 15 th. i apologize. i should have

said it before you voted. sometimes it kicks it to 2 months. you said a month. i don't know if we need to vote, the understanding is the next hear. maybe 15th. >> okay. >> our next 2012.0822c. 1865 post street - south side between fillmore and webster streets, lot 002 in assessor's block 0701 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 249.31, 303. and 712.48, to add a new use size in excess of 4,000 square feet as an "other entertainment" use to an existing restaurant d.b.a. pa ina lounge and restaurantt within a nc-3 neighborhood commercial, moderate-scalee zoning district, japan town special use district, and 50-x height and bulk district. the proposal would add live and amplified music during the restaurant's evening operating hours.. case no. case no. 6776: 767 north point street. owner of record and appellant: charles b. engelberg, 767 north point street, san francisco, ca 94109. wner of record and appellant: charles b. engelberg, 4 birdie drive, novato, ca 94949. attorney for the appellant: david edward may, 476 jackson st., 3rd floor, san francisco, ca 94111-1624. action requested for the appellant: the appellant is requesting the director's order be overturned and requesting the abatement appeals board's assistance in resolving the outstanding code violations.: 767 north point street. owner of record and appellant: charles b. engelberg, 767 north point street, san francisco, ca 94109. owner of record and

appellant: charles b. engelberg, 4 birdie drive, novato, ca 94949. attorney for the appellant: david edward may, 476 jackson st., 3rd floor, san francisco, ca 94111-1624. action requested for the appellant: the appellant is requesting the director's order be overturned and requesting the abatement appeals board's assistance in resolving the outstanding code violations. >> is the department going to make a presentation? >> yes and then the appellant. >> is there someone here from the department? finishing up with the last item. >> this is a single family dwelling where we have a typical notice of violation regarding paint. the complaint came in on the adjacent property owner and we tried to work with both property owners, the appellant and the complaint and as you can tell from your staff report, there is a history between these two parties. we did not send this right away. we tried to work this out with parties for 2 or 3 months, the hearing officer granted a 30 day continuance and it went to november of last year and there was an advisement and the parties couldn't agree as far as making

the appropriate repairs. an order was issued and we are here before but appeal of that order. there is some confusion i think on the part of the complaint regarding the difference between the disturbance of paint and the assumption there is lead paint in the property. and lead abatement which is a different thing, it's a removal of lead base paint which is not what our notice is asking for. when you are dealing with the disturbance of lead paint you must do it properly, proper containment and using proper tools. so just to orientate you, here is a photograph of

the building. on the adjacent property on north point. i'm going to show you from the rear of both structures an aerial photograph so you can see again this here is the -- [inaudible]. and the area in question is -- the wall we are talking about is the location. beyond that i don't really have much to tell you except that this is one of many cases that we have that when we didn't get compliance after so many months we sent it to administrative hearings and the policy requires and especially since we are wanting to make sure as we go through our older cases that cases come in we make sure we process them through the administrative process. so with that, unless you have any questions. i'm

sure you might want to hear from both the appellant and complainant. >> i'm having trouble envisioning after reading all of the various e-mails back and forth. can you go back to that picture. >> speak into the mic when you speak about the pictures. >> who does that wall belong to because i can't tell. >> the wall belongs to the appellant which is the property. >> so that is miss fang? >> the wall to this property here. >> the adjacent structure and what i have done is just showed you the rear here. it is the wall is essentially toward the rear of the property. >> i see, so the trels that were asked to be removed, what

were they on? >> i believe they are were on the wall. i think the appellant and complainant can talk more about that. >> i will leave this up. you may need it for discussion purposes. >> good morning, i'm an

attorney, representing dr. charles engelberg, the property owner. i would like to orientate you because you can see the walls and trels we are talking about. can we have the m o. this is the wall. the light well is on the complainant's property. there is no wall. the airspace on the

ground of the property. i'm going to show one more picture. these are pictures taken by the department and they are in your packet. they are in the department's report. in fact this is part of the entrance to the property on the north point adjoining property. the only way dr. engelberg which is the subject property can paint this wall is by going on the property of miss sang. the problem has been long before this notice of violation was issued dr. english elberg

was trying to paint this wall. we now know what wall we are talking about. the property owner at 767 whether it's dr. engelberg and 1997 has been trying to paint this wall because they want to maintain this property. it's a very nice property. dr. engelberg and prior owner did an extensive renovation of this property. the only portion of the property that was not addressed by the renovation is this wall. and the only reason that it hasn't been addressed either following the notice of violation or prior to the notice of violation is because miss sang, the complainant refuses to allow anyone to do it. if you look at exhibit 1 of

our reply papers. it's a little from miss sang that in april 8, 2013. this is the most recent. she has sent the same letter at different times. i can show you others if you want, but this is the most recent one. it's a cease and desist request and it charges that dr. engelberg with trespass onto her property and she's demanding that they cease and desist. this is when they were looking over property wall to look at the subject wall in order to plan to paint it. so just if they stick their head over the property line or even next to the property line, because we don't have a survey

to show exactly where the property line is, she is demanding that she's claiming trespass and demanding that we cease and desist and when there is actually physical presence from somebody from his contractor on her side of the fence, she calls the police. so what we are talking about and this is something that you didn't read in your staff report and this is something that's not addressed at the directors hearing and something that you will not hear if you read back the transcript of the department's presentation just a few minutes ago. there is no recognition on the part of the department that dr. engelberg wants to paint this wall, but can't either physically or legally because the complainant is preventing him from doing that. this is something that

this board needs to address and needs to understand and in fact there is law on this particular issue as pointed out in the reply statement. the law never requires impossibilities. that's a code from civil code section 3531. no man is responsible for that which no man can control. that's civil code section 3526. and no one can take advantage of his own wrong or in this case her own wrong, civil code section 3517. this is the law of the state of california. and the department is ignoring it. this board does not have that luxury.

>> before we go on to the department rebuttal, i want to focus that we are here to talk about the paint chips that landed on the adjacent property and that's what the violation was about, right? >> no. that's not what it's about. the condition is on dr. engelberg's property and that's the wall. >> that's not what we are hearing? >> if you look at the report, it was reiterated a few moments ago. you look at page 2 of the department's report, the very

first paragraph says -- excuse me, inspect or can speak to that. >> the gist of the first paragraph on page 2 is that we are not talking about lead abatement or lead chips. what we are talking about is painting over the wall on dr. engelberg's property. if we are talking about removing chips from miss sangs property, we could not do that unless she allows them on the property. the paint chips on her property

can be swept up with a broom. we are not talking about a significant or substantial amount of paint chips on her property from his wall. her wall is also peeling. her wall also has paint and was built before 1978 and there is no separation of which paint chips we are talking about. >> we'll let you talk about that later. >> we'll reserve for later. >> thank you, members of the board, the notice of violation that was issued july 27th of 2012. speaks for but it does have a reference to paint chips

because when the peeling paint is repaired, then it needs to be done in a safe manner. that's why it's there because the peeling paint looks like it had migrated onto that property. when we require the paint to the date of to be done, we would add the standpoint when painting is required by repairing, painting on the side of a building, we ask that it be done pursuant to the building code section. that is what all of this is talking about. now, as far as the statement of the law, that is not the department or city's position. obviously there is disputes between these different property owners but for us, asking a notice a violation, this is a typical notice of violation asking the

peeling paint be addressed that it be done in a practice manner . >> what he has to do is both, clean up the chips on the neighbors property. >> it appeared to the inspect or at the time he did the notice of violation that that had migrated from the peeling paint from the side of the wall. >> do we know that was because of unsafe practices or just the natural? >> no. we did not observe at any time, any work being done to the property in that there wasn't proper containment. just over time there is deterioration. if work were to begin would require proper containment. >> is there peeling paint on

the other side? >> i'm not aware if there was. it was not the subject that we were looking at at the time. it's the wall that is at issue before you. >> okay. >> go ahead. so just 2 questions. are there any other notices of violations on the doctor's property and the other question is, so, it's still a catch 22 because if the paint chips are falling naturally because of ill repair, but the property owner cannot repair it, that's going to be a never ending process. is that not right? so, yes, he should clean that up, but he has to go on the neighbors property to do it, however, he can not resolve

the structural problem which is take off the old paint and put on new paint. so has that been addressed? >> first of all let me speak from a staff standpoint whether he can get on the prior or not, we are not the trier of fact. we don't know the expertise of whether that is a case or not. we know there is a history between the property owners and give them time to work this out but when we see this paint condition, we write a notice of violation. when we write a notice like this and someone needs to go on the property and they can work it out and work out a way get it done. we have properties in this city and they are usually reciprocal and the work gets done. this is one

of those situations where there is a dispute, but when we write the notice of violation we are not able to determine that is the case or not. we still have to write the notice of violation. whether it is factual or not that he can't get on that property, i don't know and i can't make that decision legally. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yeah. it seems like damned if you do and damned if you don't. so i guess the question is, recognizing that. >> yes, sir. >> and recognizing that testimony and letters that it's our best intentions to clean up this but we can't. shouldn't the department's position recognize that and is the appellant here toed -- today. >> from the standpoint of the department as i made